Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ambroseji" data-source="post: 6271775" data-attributes="member: 6700516">It's worth mentioning that scaling damage through extra attacks is a good way to keep &quot;player morale&quot; high. When the martial classes had increased weapon dice instead of extra attacks, a miss was tragic for the fighter and paladin in the group. Although their damage was balanced, missing felt like a huge waste of a round. By attacking twice, the turns where those players accomplish nothing are mitigated (although they still occur).If rangers, paladins, and barbarians have their damage tied to a single attack, they are going to feel like swingy, all-or-nothing classes. Even if the math balances with the fighters many attacks, there will be a lot of rounds where those players feel useless in the fight.A current example is the rogue, although the class makes up for it with other features. The rogue player (level 9) in my current Next campaign has commented a few times that he feels like his turns go to waste when he misses. I hear, &quot;another wasted turn... grumble grumble,&quot; from his side of the table all the time. Frankly, that player is pessimistic when his dice roll poorly, so I'm used to that response from him, and I don't believe that the rogue is weak because of it.Since rogue's damage is tied to that one attack per round he has cunning action to help him set up a good strike. That same rogue player rarely makes an attack without advantage. Each turn he attacks, and then uses cunning action to set up his next round in a way that's advantageous to him. In that way he's able to feel like he's contributing each round, and even when he misses, he's working to set up his next strike.My point is that removing the extra attacks from the martial classes other than fighter would impact the feel and playstyle of those classes in a negative way. No one likes to feel useless, and I think having multiple attacks helps avoid that.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ambroseji, post: 6271775, member: 6700516"] It's worth mentioning that scaling damage through extra attacks is a good way to keep "player morale" high. When the martial classes had increased weapon dice instead of extra attacks, a miss was tragic for the fighter and paladin in the group. Although their damage was balanced, missing felt like a huge waste of a round. By attacking twice, the turns where those players accomplish nothing are mitigated (although they still occur). If rangers, paladins, and barbarians have their damage tied to a single attack, they are going to feel like swingy, all-or-nothing classes. Even if the math balances with the fighters many attacks, there will be a lot of rounds where those players feel useless in the fight. A current example is the rogue, although the class makes up for it with other features. The rogue player (level 9) in my current Next campaign has commented a few times that he feels like his turns go to waste when he misses. I hear, "another wasted turn... grumble grumble," from his side of the table all the time. Frankly, that player is pessimistic when his dice roll poorly, so I'm used to that response from him, and I don't believe that the rogue is weak because of it. Since rogue's damage is tied to that one attack per round he has cunning action to help him set up a good strike. That same rogue player rarely makes an attack without advantage. Each turn he attacks, and then uses cunning action to set up his next round in a way that's advantageous to him. In that way he's able to feel like he's contributing each round, and even when he misses, he's working to set up his next strike. My point is that removing the extra attacks from the martial classes other than fighter would impact the feel and playstyle of those classes in a negative way. No one likes to feel useless, and I think having multiple attacks helps avoid that. [/QUOTE]

Verification